↓ Skip to main content

Precisely Tracking Childhood Death

Overview of attention for article published in The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Precisely Tracking Childhood Death
Published in
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, June 2017
DOI 10.4269/ajtmh.16-0302
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Little is known about the specific causes of neonatal and under-five childhood death in high-mortality geographic regions due to a lack of primary data and dependence on inaccurate tools, such as verbal autopsy. To meet the ambitious new Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 to eliminate preventable child mortality in every country, better approaches are needed to precisely determine specific causes of death so that prevention and treatment interventions can be strengthened and focused. Minimally invasive tissue sampling (MITS) is a technique that uses needle-based postmortem sampling, followed by advanced histopathology and microbiology to definitely determine cause of death. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is supporting a new surveillance system called the Child Health and Mortality Prevention Surveillance network, which will determine cause of death using MITS in combination with other information, and yield cause-specific population-based mortality rates, eventually in up to 12-15 sites in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia. However, the Gates Foundation funding alone is not enough. We call on governments, other funders, and international stakeholders to expand the use of pathology-based cause of death determination to provide the information needed to end preventable childhood mortality.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Other 7 11%
Student > Master 5 8%
Lecturer 4 6%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 15 24%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 27%
Social Sciences 7 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 22 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 October 2019.
All research outputs
#4,008,447
of 29,631,763 outputs
Outputs from The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
#1,175
of 10,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,318
of 343,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
#30
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,631,763 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,030 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,172 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 142 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.